“This is the first time
in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of
intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic
development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the
Industrial Revolution.”

Please examine the above
statement. Where do you see any endorsements of communism, or socialism or any
kind of anti-free enterprise system? What she advocates is the TRANSFORMATION,
of the economic development MODEL---not the destruction of free enterprise! I
couldn’t find an actual video dated from Jan 2015 that included her famous
statement, but the quote above is accurate. And “economic models” obviously
refers to the ways economies function, make, and distribute money—not socialism
or communism. And after examining all the videos I have watched, Ms Figueres,
merely discussed world economic cooperation via seeking agreements on setting
long range goals instead of thinking in the short term. Her statements are full
of affirmations that the participation of the world’s business sector will need
to be involved---not about seeking its destruction! So often denier accuse
those who accept AGW, of being hysterical alarmists about global warming and
the world’s economy---well, all the exaggerations of Ms Figueres’s intentions
are now met with hysteria and alarm from AGW deniers, for no real reasons!

Unfortunately, the very
well-funded denial industry has already crowded google with one propaganda
article after another, which have been posted by those who count on stirring up
hysteria and misconceptions about Figures’ comments. One actually has to go
quite deeply into google to find various articles that actually tell the truth,
which is;

When we changed our economic
basis from agriculture to industrial production, we transformed the economy.

When we switched from
kerosene to the incandescent lightbulb, the economic model was transformed.

When we developed mass
production technology the economic model transformed.

When we began an era of
businesses outsourcing labor, we became an economy largely dependent on
outsourcing.

And more recently, when we
changed from the analogue to the digital age, we also transformed the way our
economy grows and flourishes.

These facts do not disparage
business investments in renewable energy but, anti- AGW propagandists have been
hysterically grasping at statements like these, which have been made by
Figueres and others, to lend a fraudulent legitimacy to the issue of AGW which
are intended to bolsters their reactionary fears. That’s all!

Here is what Figueres said in
her controversial statements as recorded in the PDF at the beginning of this
post:

“We can’t have an inclusive
economic system unless we take the climate seriously. Integrating concern for
our shared planet into the concept of capitalism is instrumental for economic
prosperity in the face of climate change. At current rates of greenhouse gas
emissions, humanity is approaching dangerous global warming – the cost of which
will be borne disproportionately by the poor and the vulnerable. Limiting
warming requires substantial and sustained emissions reductions and the
development of more resilient societies. Capitalism must be part of the
solution. For humanity to survive and thrive.”

As for the Rural
Electrification Project during Roosevelt’s Presidency, which a forum debater
offered as an example of government take overs, this information was on many
websites which I examined;

“Although nearly 90 percent
of urban dwellers had electricity by the 1930s, only ten percent of rural
dwellers did. Private utility companies, who supplied electric power to most of
the nation's consumers, argued that it was too expensive to string electric
lines to isolated rural farmsteads. Anyway, they said, most farmers, were too
poor to be able to afford electricity.

The Roosevelt Administration
believed that if private enterprise could not supply electric power to the
people, then it was the duty of the government to do so. Most of the court
cases involving TVA during the 1930s concerned the government's involvement in
the public utilities industry.

In 1935 the Rural Electric
Administration (REA) was created to bring electricity to rural areas like the Tennessee Valley. In his 1935 article "Electrifying the Countryside," Morris Cooke, the head of the
REA, stated that:

“In addition to paying for
the energy he used, the farmer was expected to advance to the power company
most or all of the costs of construction. Since utility company ideas as to
what constituted sound rural lines have been rather fancy, such costs were
prohibitive for most farmers. [ footnote]”

This was a very successful
program that brought electric power to rural communities like the one which my
parents lived in. Of course big business fanatics of the time also claimed it
was beyond the scope of Presidential powers, and represented a plot to
establish socialism of communism?

Can anyone tell us though,
how businessmen were screwed by this program? Each farmer had to pay for the energy
he used, and he was also required to compensate power companies for the cost of
construction. And ya know what, we still have a wildly successful
capitalistic system today, despite the (dreaded) beneficent influence on the
government under Roosevelt!

My dad came from a family of
13 children and my Mother was one of 7 children. As a result of this and other
programs enacted by Roosevelt, their families were able to survive the long
hard years of the depression with dignity, since in addition, Roosevelt
also provided work projects under the WPA like the CCC. Unemployed men were
able to do useful infrastructure projects that helped society as whole, and
were provided food and shelter while working away from home. This enabled them
to send most of their paychecks back to their families at a time when literally
counting every penny they had, was absolutely necessary. Everyone involved won,
including the utility companies. Is that really anyone’s idea of some nefarious
communist or socialist plot?

Here are some more proposals
from the link above made by Ms Figueres in a supposedly
pro-communist—pro-socialist speech!

Summary:

Ms Figures began with some
upbeat observations about progress in several domains over the last 12 months
and then expressed her views that:

· An agreement to tackle
climate change would be nutted out over the next week, although it would be
tough;

· An agreement would probably
be made about the direction of change but not the speed;

· ˜a completely different
economic development model' is required to effect the changes necessary;

· Markets alone could achieve
the change required but not quickly enough;

· The science is clear that
carbon emissions must peak by 2020 “especially if we are to fulfil our moral
duty to protect the most vulnerable communities;

· We must focus our attention
and help on developing countries “they have increasing carbon emissions,
increasing populations and increasing needs for infrastructure;

· The energy needs of those
without current access to electricity must be met with renewables “but
different finance models will be needed in different situations, for example
for on-grid and off-grid communities;

· We must find ways of
working across not within silos, and for the long not the short term “not easy
for humans; The mantra is BAU: Business As Urgent.

Why did I find all that
concerning? Because while I am sure that we (the global we) understand the
problem adequately, and have sufficient technological solutions already
available to us to keep global warming under 2C, I'm not sure that we have the
social wherewithal (for instance common purpose and national and international
institutions) to achieve the policy and technical changes necessary in the very
short time we have left to prevent disaster. As others have observed---the laws
of physics don't negotiate."

“But he [the Prime Minister]
was not there. As it turned out, it's probably just as well for it might have prevented Canada's
environment minister from making the following remarkable admission.”

Climate change (provides) “the greatest chance to bring about justice and
equality in the world," she said.

All this time you thought
the global-warming debate was simply about weird weather, melting ice caps,
rising sea levels and more atmospheric gas than a buffalo would generate
walking from Calgary to Winnipeg.
No. Turns out not to be so. By the minister's own emission, it's much more
about the beloved liberal ideals of social engineering and government
pocket-picking to redistribute your wealth as it sees fit.
As many who've raised their voices against the potted science behind global warming
have long suspected, it's about cajoling (frightening) you into accepting very
particular definitions of justice and equality.
Don't be surprised if that definition leaves you completely free to bang on dee
drum awl day.”

If Ms. Stewart had actually
used the words which appear to have been attributed to her above, it would have
made about as much sense as Richard Nixon defending himself by telling a
television audience that he personally ordered the Watergate break in---or if
All the C.E.Os. and big shots in our current “too big to fail” group of big
banks and wall street firms, came right out and said that they took the money
of others and invested it in money making schemes that they knew would
eventually collapse under their own weight, as part of their legal defense? But
In reality, there are no reasons to believe that any of these things were
really said by Ms. Stewart, or whether, after the initial two sentences, the
claims made against her amount to anything more than Stockland’s own speculations,
or just represent creative fiction from the pens of those trying to destroy the
efforts of climate scientists—if she had been working to promote the Kyoto
accords while openly vilifying and lying about the findings of climate science,
that would have been an extremely unbelievable set of admissions for any global
warming affirmer to make?—that’s why the author of this article in the Calgary
Herald may have made it all up—Did Mr. Stockland lie in order to spread more
lies about human caused climate change? For people who claim to be so motivated
by truth and ethical integrity, it’s very ironic to see how unethical deniers,
including the above article’s author, Peter Stockland, seem to have
fictionalized actual climate science, just to serve their own biases?

Friday, March 24, 2017

Refuting Tom Harris on reality and science is both fun and easy. This is a person who, for whatever reason, practices deceit so extensively I think he no longer knows the difference between real science and his lies. In his role as a paid shill for the fossil fuel industry, Harris was recently able to get a letter published in the Duluth News Tribune, a paper that has provided a friendly venue to anti-science advocates. I submitted the following in rebuttal.

(UPDATE: The original submission was too long to be accepted. Below is the updated, shorter version.)

Mr. Harris’ claim that scientists are stifling debate on climate
change is false. There is a healthy debate on this topic. What the scientific community
is opposed to is people interjecting anti-science rhetoric into the discussion.
Harris is the executive director of the Canadian fossil fuel advocacy group
International Climate Science Coalition and is paid to place pro-fossil
fuel/anti-science letters for public consumption.

Harris states, “no sensible person, … denies that climate
changes.” In fact, Mr. Harris is on record as denying climate change. The
reality is that the climate is changing and is changing much more dramatically
than at anytime in the last 800,000 years. Harris also says this fact is
“irrelevant to anyone but specialists in the field” when it is actually relevant
to everyone. Polls show over 97% of all climate scientists acknowledge the reality
of manmade climate change. Harris is deceitful stating no such poll has ever
been taken.

Harris’ quotes Dr. Tim Ball. Ball is a geographer, not a
climatologist. In a libel suit he was forced to drop, court documents stated
about Ball, "The Plaintiff's credentials and credibility as an expert on
the issue of global warming have been repeatedly disparaged in the media.” And,
“The Plaintiff is viewed as a paid promoter of the agenda of the oil and gas
industry rather than as a practicing scientist." Ball stated carbon
dioxide is not a greenhouse gas. This is the equivalent of saying gravity
doesn’t exist. The properties of CO2 as a greenhouse gas are well
documented.

Any debate should be limited to real science, not
anti-science rhetoric.

Dr. Christopher Keating

Mason, Texas

Dr. Keating is a professor of physics and conducts research
in planetary geophysics, including climate change.

Wednesday, March 22, 2017

The National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) has not yet announced the Arctic sea ice maximum extent for this year, but I expect them to do so momentarily. (UPDATE: NSIDC made the announcement mere hours after I wrote this.) And, I expect them to announce the maximum extent for 2017 was 14.420 million square kilometers and occurred on March 7. When this is confirmed, it will be the lowest maximum extent ever recorded and 2017 will be the third year in a row to experience the record low maximum. (UPDATE: You can read a nice article about the changes in the sea ice here.) The graphic below shows the sea ice extent for 2017 (light blue), 2016 (red), 2015 (dark blue) and the 1981-2010 median extent (dark grey). The shaded areas are one and two standard deviations from the median.

This means the 2017 Arctic sea ice melt season is now underway and, considering the terrible shape of the maximum extent, we already have to be concerned about the minimum extent coming in September. Given this situation, I decided to make an attempt at a very early prediction on the minimum. I predicted the maximum would be 14.2 million square kilometers and would occur in the first week of March, so I was pretty close.

One of the dire situations that doesn't show up in the above graph is the ice thickness, which is in even worse shape than the extent. This is a plot of the ice thickness from the Polar Portal.

I expect all ice 2 meters thick and thinner to completely melt by September. That is the ice colored light blue to purple and violet. Likewise, I expect all of the ice 3.5 meters thick and thicker to survive, albeit in a much thinner condition. That would be the yellow, red and white colored areas. The green areas are a toss-up. A great deal of the melting depends on the weather in the Arctic region during the summer. If the summer is cloudy and cold, more of the green area will survive. If the summer is clear and sunny, more will melt. I used a figure of 50% melt for the green areas in my estimate. That only leaves adding up the areas, which really wasn't all the difficult. The Polar Portal conveniently included some marked blocks. I merely had to find the area of the marked areas.

The surface area of a part of a globe is called a spherical cap and the math is straight forward. I have included a description of the math below. These calculations gave me 3.9 million square kilometers for the area inside the most poleward dotted circle. I used an even four million for my estimate. The circle indicates 80 degrees north. The next larger dotted circle indicates 70 degrees north. This area is also divided up into 10 degree-wide blocks. I calculated the area of each block to be 323,000 square kilometers and I rounded up to 325,000.

I estimate one half of the area of the 80 circle to still have ice in September (even including the land area as 'ice free'). This is 2 million square kilometers. Of the 10-degree squares, I expect there will be only three blocks worth of ice remaining at the minimum. That is another 975,000 square kilometers. Let's call it an even one million.

So, my very early forecast is for the 2017 minimum extent to be about 3 million square kilometers. This would be the lowest minimum extent ever recorded and would easily shatter the previous record low of 3.387 million square kilometers set in 2012.

Of course, we'll have to wait until September to see how well I do with this forecast. Unfortunately, I feel that my estimate is conservative and fear the actual extent will be even lower. Let's hope I'm wrong.

MATH USED

A spherical cap is the surface area of a sphere cut off by a plane. If the plane cuts the sphere in half, the spherical cap is called a hemisphere.

The area of the 80o circle is simple and is merely 2π(6400 km)(97 km) = 3.9 million square km
The area of the 70o circle is 2π(6400 km)(386 km) = 15.5 million square km

If you use the alternative equation as a check, you get the same results.

However, we don't want the surface area of the 70o circle, we want the area outside of the 80o circle, so we need to subtract the area of the smaller circle from the larger one and this is equal to 11.6 million square km. This is the area of the band between the 70o circle and the 80o circle. This area is divided up into 36 10-degree-wide blocks, giving us 323,000 square kilometers per 10o x 10o block on the Polar Portal graphic.